Calum Miller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends. It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member does not mind, I will make a bit more progress. Let me now turn to veteran support. Service personnel transitioning out of the forces and into civilian life need vastly more support to ensure a smooth transition. In my own constituency, I have heard just in the last six months from two families deeply affected by the abject failure to link up military and civilian medical records. Two of my constituents were denied, as veterans, the care and support they deserved for physical and mental health damage sustained in fighting for our nation. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) has been assiduous in responding to me and I am in no doubt of her personal commitment. However, I think she would agree that such cases highlight system-wide problems that must be tackled.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. He has spoken about two themes: the scale of ambition of this Bill, and the need for the patient voice to be heard at the heart of it, given how much all our constituents care about the NHS. In the case of Healthwatch, can he reassure the House that bringing the scrutiny of local voices up to the level of the Secretary of State will not diminish the independence of the local healthwatch organisations that, in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, do so much to promote the patient voice and to hold the NHS to account for its services?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, too many families face long and distressing waits for mental health support for children and young people. When I raised this with the Secretary of State some 15 months ago, he said that the Government were determined to ensure that mental health waits receive the same focus as the elective backlog. Yet a constituent recently wrote to me to explain that her son is waiting 10 months just for an assessment for his mental health needs. She asked me: “How can we as parents and carers be expected to watch our young people suffer for a whole year before they get any help?” I am worried that the revised mental health investment standard will not help this problem sufficiently. Can the Minister tell my constituents when child and adolescent mental health waiting lists will start to fall?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the mental health investment standard on access to mental health services.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this important debate. Last October, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), I met with representatives of 48 parish and town councils from the villages and towns that surround Oxford. These hard-working volunteers are the lifeblood of local communities and the closest level of representation to residents. They were very clear that local government reorganisation is an opportunity as well as a considerable upheaval, and they had three tests for any new arrangement in Oxfordshire: first, that it should make the delivery of public services simpler and more efficient; secondly, that it should retain accountability for key decisions closer to residents and strengthen the role of parish and town councils; and thirdly, that it should make sense in terms of geography, history and existing structures. Happily, those tests are similar to those that the Government have themselves set out—yet Oxfordshire is shaping up to be an important test of the Government’s approach to local government reorganisation. Ministers have set out clear criteria, and it is essential that they are applied properly to every proposal. On those tests, I believe the strongest fit in Oxfordshire is the One Oxfordshire proposal. Oxfordshire county council’s proposal is for a single county-wide unitary on the existing county geography. The county council says that this would save over £63 million a year, and it stands to reason that consolidating at the higher tier would be more efficient, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) set out more eloquently than I could. The county council already delivers services to over 750,000 residents and accounts for 85% of local government service expenditure in Oxfordshire. Keeping the county structure would avoid splitting critical services such as adult and children’s social care, SEND provision and homelessness. The main challenge to this approach is how it would sustain accountability at a suitably local level. To this, the county council proposes partnerships with town and parish councils, new area committees and other neighbourhood governance arrangements. As well as local representation, what matters is that the shape of any new unitary authority makes sense to residents. A county-wide model follows the existing Oxfordshire geography, keeps the area together and is plainly easier for residents to understand than a plan built on split districts and cross-boundary complexity. By contrast, the Oxford city council-backed 3Councils proposal asks Ministers to move away from that starting point; the Government’s consultation states that it would split existing district areas and establish a Greater Oxford council, a Northern Oxfordshire council and a Ridgeway council. That proposal is fraught with issues. It chops and changes existing district-level boundaries, even though the Government’s guidance says that districts should be the building blocks of new unitaries. It shoehorns in west Berkshire, which is in a different fire and rescue service area, even though the Government’s guidance says that proposals affecting wider public services need a strong justification. The Government say that 500,000 residents is the guiding principle, yet Oxford city council’s proposal documents put the populations at 240,000 for Greater Oxford, 265,000 for Northern Oxfordshire and 430,000 for Ridgeway. Oxford city council argues for an exception, and that is of course open to it, but let us be honest about what it means. It means asking Ministers to depart from their own default principle not once but three times, while accepting greater boundary complexity. The question for Ministers is, what justification could there be for departing so far from Government guidance, and why import additional structural complexity and financial risk into Oxfordshire when there is a county-wide Oxfordshire option that does not require it? Before we get to a new model for local government in Oxfordshire, we need to address transitional funding arrangements. The Minister is well aware of the challenges of funding the SEND system and the impact that underfunding has had on not only councils but families across the country. The proposal to meet 90% of the high needs block deficit in Oxfordshire with central Government funding is welcome, but Oxfordshire county council understands that this deficit will be defined as of 31 March this year, whereas new funding models will not begin until 2028-29. Will the Minister please set out how the likely additional funding for high needs will be met for the two missing years? At the same time, Cherwell district council in my constituency was shocked that the Government advised, on 6 February, days before its budget-setting council, that they had made an error in the draft local government funding proposals and were cutting £2 million from Cherwell’s advised settlement. After interventions from local MPs, the Government provided a one-year additional grant to Cherwell, but the council and its residents have no certainty about the next two years of funding, with the threat of losing nearly 10% of income hanging over it. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) to discuss Cherwell’s future funding formula. In October, the 48 parish and town councils were unanimous in opposing the 3Councils proposal. They saw it for what it is: a crude effort by Oxford city council to grab a larger area of land, which would break up existing rural communities, sever historic linkages between villages and market towns, and leave two other ill-funded residual councils as the collateral damage of a power grab that fails to meet the Government’s criteria. Reorganisation should be about better services, clearer accountability and stronger local government. It should not be about bending the rules after the event. In Oxfordshire, the Government have set the tests. They should now apply them properly.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Sexual Violence Support Services: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I recently had the opportunity to visit the dedicated staff at Survivor Space, a centre for victims of sexual violence in Oxford that serves my constituents. I was shocked to learn that victims and survivors of sexual violence may wait up to two years for a counselling session. I was further appalled to learn that at least one survivor had been advised that they could not access NHS mental health services until they had first had counselling from Survivor Space. Does the Secretary of State agree that no survivor should have to wait two years for treatment, and would he or one of his Ministers meet me and representatives of Survivor Space to discuss how to get dedicated healthcare funding to the frontline in order to support such services?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  In 2020, Palantir accepted a fee of £1 for trialling its data collection services during covid. Since then, the company has amassed contracts with the NHS and the MOD worth more than £500 million. Given the growing scale of Palantir’s involvement in the UK, transparency around its operations is vital, yet the Government have consistently chosen to obfuscate, rather than clarify. Such transparency is especially important when it comes to technology that may lock the UK into dependency on one supplier. In respect of the recent £240 million contract awarded to Palantir, I ask the Minister one more time: will he tell the House why there was no competitive process? Was the Defence Secretary aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir when this decision was taken solely by him, as the Minister has said? Last month, Donald Trump threatened a NATO ally with annexation. Despite that, the Government have chosen to green-light a multimillion-pound defence contract with a company co-founded by Trump’s billionaire backer, Peter Thiel. We must be alert to the genuine risk that data collected by Palantir in the UK could be fed back to the White House. Will the Minister provide firm guarantees that all data collected by Palantir will not be shared beyond our Ministry of Defence?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Health Inequalities: Women · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to help tackle health inequalities affecting women.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the robust approach of the E3 in initiating the snapback mechanism in response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and programme, which are in breach of its undertakings. The Foreign Secretary’s statement on 21 July shocked this House, and we had a long debate about the situation in Gaza, yet the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the west bank has deteriorated even further since then, as he has acknowledged. We have seen hundreds more Palestinians killed while seeking aid; famine declared in the strip; a chronic lack of medical supplies, attested to by UK medics volunteering in Nasser hospital; the start of IDF operations in Gaza City; and the images of emaciated hostages still held in brutal captivity by Hamas terrorists. The human suffering is indeed beyond comprehension, yet the extremists are indifferent. Hamas terrorists publish videos intended to torment the families of hostages. Cabinet members Ben-Gvir and Smotrich advocate for the forced displacement of Palestinians. In Israel, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum and Opposition parties call for an end to the violence. In the UK, our constituents are desperate for the same. The bloodshed can be stopped only by decisive actions—actions that I regret the Government have so far failed to take. The Prime Minister was wrong in principle to condition the recognition of Palestine on the actions of the Netanyahu Government, and wrong in practice, as he has been ignored. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm today that the UK will recognise Palestine later this month at the UN? The Government must learn a lesson and now apply relentless pressure on the Netanyahu Government, so the Liberal Democrats call today on the Foreign Secretary to finally sanction Prime Minister Netanyahu for expanding his military campaign and pursuing the illegal expansion of the E1 settlements, and to take the steps necessary to ban the export of all UK arms to Israel, including F-35 components. Will he also make representations to the Qatari Government to demand that they exile Hamas from their political headquarters unless they agree to the release of all the hostages immediately and unconditionally? The Foreign Secretary bemoans that words are not enough to alleviate the suffering. He acknowledges that the Government have failed to move the combatants, yet there is one man who could unlock progress. Donald Trump has the power to secure peace in Gaza, if he chose to, by picking up the phone to Netanyahu. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how he will use his special relationship with Vice President Vance to help secure that goal, and will the Government commit to making a ceasefire in Gaza a priority during President Trump’s state visit?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Health Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that public health is at the heart of addressing the long list of inequalities he has just highlighted? I am deeply concerned that a major reorganisation of local government and the cutting of budgets to the integrated care board will undermine the co-ordination that currently exists in Oxfordshire to deliver public health. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that public health will continue to be a priority at the heart of the prevention strategy, and that funding for public health will rise in future years to make that possible?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I welcome his commitment to a diplomatic resolution in Syria, and to holding the Governments of Syria and Israel accountable for protecting all civilians, especially minorities. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that the situation in Gaza is inhumane and grotesque and that a ceasefire is desperately needed. I welcome the aid allocations that he has announced, but the problem is that the situation is not new and that repeated expressions of regret by this Government have not prevented further carnage from being wrought by the Netanyahu Government. The whole House saw the passion with which the right hon. Gentleman announced the British, French and Canadian joint position on 20 May, and with which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), sanctioned Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir on 10 June. In those statements, Ministers said that “we cannot stand by” and that they would respond “not just with words but with action.” —[ Official Report , 10 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 913.] I think they meant it, and yet two months later, the Secretary of State has only words, not action. Once again, his joint statement with other countries says only that “We are prepared to take further action”, and yet children queuing for food or water are still being killed every single day as the Israeli Cabinet maintains its grotesque blockade of humanitarian aid. It now proposes an open-air prison for all Gazans, which, according to Ehud Olmert, would amount to “ethnic cleansing”. Today, I spoke to the Oxfordshire doctors Nick Maynard and Nada Al-Hadithy from Nasser hospital in Gaza. They described the desperation of civilians facing the latest Israeli attack, on Deir al-Balah, and the deaths of patients for want of basic dressings, and said that IDF snipers fired directly into the hospital compound. Yet settlers in the west bank continue illegally to occupy Palestinian homes and land, and the remaining hostages, who have been held in Gaza for over 650 days at the hands of Hamas terrorists, are no closer to release. I have written to the Foreign Secretary frequently to set out the many more steps that Liberal Democrats believe he should take, so I will simply ask him this. Does he truly believe that his Government are doing all they can to put an end to the terrible violence and starvation being visited on Gaza in clear contravention of international law? Can he explain why there have been so few consequences since he and the Under-Secretary of State spoke so powerfully in the last two months? And can he dispel the widespread view that he is not setting the policy he would choose, but that he is instead being reined in by No. 10’s desire not to upset President Trump by acting more boldly?